John Paul Zubec

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to amend his human rights application to include allegations of reprisal and additional remedies related to sick, disability, and pension entitlements.

The respondent did not object, provided it could file an amended response.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding the proposed amendments flowed directly from the original allegations of discrimination and were closely connected in time and substance.

The applicant, a former university student, alleged discrimination with respect to services because of disability after she was withdrawn from her academic program.

The respondent requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application, arguing there was no reasonable prospect of success because the applicant failed to meet academic requirements before disclosing her disability.

The Tribunal found that the application should proceed to a full hearing, as the applicant alleged her relationship with the respondent was not finally severed until after she disclosed her disability.

The applicant, a university student, alleged discrimination on the basis of race, ancestry, ethnic origin, sex, and reprisal after an academic disagreement with his instructor over course materials and a subsequent plagiarism allegation.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found no evidence linking the respondent's actions to the prohibited grounds and concluded that the respondent's request for a meeting and instruction not to attend class did not constitute a reprisal.

The application was dismissed.

The plaintiff accounting firm sought costs as a sanction against numerous defendants for alleged delay in providing answers to undertakings, advisements, and refusals arising from examinations for discovery.

The plaintiff argued that the defendants took approximately sixteen months to provide all answers and that the motion was necessary to compel compliance.

The court found that although the timeline was lengthy, the delay was largely explained by the large number of defendants, the volume of undertakings, and the need to obtain detailed accounting information from multiple franchise operators.

The court concluded there was no evidence of uncooperative conduct or improper litigation tactics by the defendants or their counsel.

In the circumstances, a costs sanction was not justified.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability following the termination of her contract as an American Sign Language consultant.

The respondents requested early dismissal of the application on the basis that it was filed beyond the one-year time limit under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the application was filed out of time and that the applicant's subsequent efforts to be reinstated did not constitute a series of incidents.

The Tribunal further held that the applicant failed to establish that the delay was incurred in good faith, as she provided insufficient detail and no medical evidence to explain the delay.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, who had diabetes and other health issues, mistakenly believed she had contracted tuberculosis and informed her employer.

She was dismissed shortly after, ostensibly for poor judgment in coming to work and for making a discriminatory remark about a co-worker.

The Tribunal found that the employer failed to inquire into her medical situation and that the dismissal was partly motivated by a desire to avoid accommodating her future disability-related absences.

The Tribunal awarded compensation for lost wages and $20,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.